I said to myself concerning humans, “God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but animals.”

A number of translations insert a word such as “like” to avoid the meaning of the Hebrew text being conveyed to readers. And so conservative Evangelical Bible translations often reinforce the entrenched opposition to science by obscuring in translation those things in the Bible that might help readers.

This “kind” stuff (which is sometimes given the fancy science-y sounding name “baraminology”) is such a nuisance. Creationists act like it’s hard science, unless you really press them on what the definition of a “kind” is. By what measure is a “feline”? They kinda look alike? Not particularly rigorous, if you ask me.

What do you mean by this? How are mythicists misunderstanding “contemporary”?

Matt Brown

Mythicists think that in order for Jesus to exist, there has to be a historian or other people to write about him during his life. However, what they fail to realize is that many non-biblical sources like Tacitus and Josephus are “contemporary” because they were alive during the early church(The disciples, Paul, James, etc.). They therefore dismiss their testimony as “hearsay”, but the irony is that they accept other historical figures who don’t have any historical writings from their day like Pontius Pilate.

Sven2547

Mythicists think that in order for Jesus to exist, there has to be a historian or other people to write about him during his life.

It would be more accurate to say that Mythicists think that, in order for claims about Jesus to be credible, there should be contemporaneous extra-Biblical sources verifying his existence.

However, what they fail to realize is that many non-biblical sources like Tacitus and Josephus are “contemporary” because they were alive during the early church(The disciples, Paul, James, etc.)

So they were contemporaries of the early church, but not Jesus. There’s a difference. That’s like saying you’re a contemporary of FDR because you pay Social Security.

Matt Brown

“It would be more accurate to say that Mythicists think that, in order for claims about Jesus to be credible, there should be contemporaneous extra-Biblical sources verifying his existence.”

There are extra-biblical sources verifying his existence. Tons of it.

“So they were contemporaries of the early church, but not Jesus. There’s a difference. That’s like saying you’re a contemporary of FDR because you pay Social Security.”

The early church were contemporaries of Jesus. The extra-biblical sources who wrote about Jesus lived during the early church and they are therefore valid because they lived during or near the first-hand eyewitnesses.

Sven2547

There are extra-biblical sources verifying his existence. Tons of it.

Right, and I’m sure you’re just too busy to cite… any…

The early church were contemporaries of Jesus.

If the first adherents of a religion are proof of that religion’s factuality, then all religions are true. That premise is, of course, preposterous.

Matt Brown

“Right, and I’m sure you’re just too busy to cite… any..”

Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Thallus, Some of the apocryphal Gospels, Celsius, there are many more but these are just a few;)

“If the first adherents of a religion are proof of that religion’s factuality, then all religions are true. That premise is, of course, preposterous.”

If you’re going to argue against me, you should at least copy the context of my argument and not just one sentence. Now your statement is a non-sequitir. The point is that if there are first-hand eyewitnesses alive during such powerful and notable figures like Josephus, and they write about what happened several decades prior, then that is still contemporary evidence. We also have oral tradition that goes back during Jesus day.

Sven2547

If you write about something that happened before you were born, your writings are NOT contemporary to that event. Is that so hard?

con·tem·po·rar·y kənˈtempəˌrerē/ adjective 1. living or occurring at the same time.

Josephus

Born 37 AD

Tacitus

Born 56 AD

Lucian

Born 125 AD. Calling Lucian a “contemporary” of Jesus is like calling a newborn of today a “contemporary” of Jefferson Davis. It’s ridiculous and you are embarrassing yourself.

Thallus

…never mentioned Jesus. Not even once.

Some of the apocryphal Gospels

Non-canonical scripture isn’t more credible than scripture. In fact, it’s arguably less credible.

Celsius

I assume you mean Celsus who, like Lucian, was born a century after-the-fact.

The point is that if there are first-hand eyewitnesses alive during such powerful and notable figures like Josephus, and they write about what happened several decades prior, then that is still contemporary evidence.

And my point is that you’ve still yet to even NAME a “first-hand eyewitness”, HINT: try someone with a birthdate that ends in “BC”.

Matt Brown

“If you write about something that happened before you were born, your writings are NOT contemporary to that event. Is that so hard?”

So all those who wrote about certain events in ancient history are wrong?

The disciples of Jesus were first hand eye-witnesses to his birth, life, death and resurrection. The gospels draw upon their accounts via oral tradition.

How do you know Pontius Pilate existed? Can you cite me a list of contemporary historians who wrote about him during his life?

Sven2547

So all those who wrote about certain events in ancient history are wrong?

That’s not what I said. I said they’re not contemporaneous. If you’re going to argue against me, you should at least copy the context of my argument and not just one sentence.

The disciples of Jesus were first hand eye-witnesses to his birth, life, death and resurrection. The gospels draw upon their accounts via oral tradition.

Citing the Gospels as proof of Jesus’ existence is no different than calling any other scripture proof of that religion’s factuality. We’ve been over this.

How do you know Pontius Pilate existed?

At what point did I say I was convinced Pilate existed? Oh wait, I didn’t. You just assumed.

Matt Brown

“That’s not what I said. I said they’re not contemporaneous. If you’re going to argue against me, you should at least copy the context of my argument and not just one sentence.”

Well you’re arguing that in order for someone to exist, there must be historians alive at the time and place of their existence.

“Citing the Gospels as proof of Jesus’ existence is no different than calling any other scripture proof of that religion’s factuality. We’ve been over this”

Not when we can verify the Gospels via the historical method as factual history, unless you deny this as well.

“At what point did I say I was convinced Pilate existed? Oh wait, I didn’t. You just assumed.”

My apologies, but do you believe that Pilate existed?

Sven2547

Well you’re arguing that in order for someone to exist, there must be historians alive at the time and place of their existence.

Not when we can verify the Gospels via the historical method as factual history, unless you deny this as well.

Still awaiting that “verification”, chief. Heck, the Gospels even contradict each-other.

My apologies, but do you believe that Pilate existed?

Not sure. Never gave it much thought. I would expect the notoriously bureaucratic Romans to have some sort of record of whoever occupies an office as high as Pilate’s. If that evidence isn’t there, then it’s dubious at best.

Criterian of embarassment, Double dissimilarity, Multiple Attestation,etc. Of course the Gospels contradict each-other that’s what makes the events in them more plausible than not. That’s what we expect to have from eyewitness testimony.

“Not sure. Never gave it much thought. I would expect the notoriously bureaucratic Romans to have some sort of record of whoever occupies an office as high as Pilate’s. If that evidence isn’t there, then it’s dubious at best.”

Well most of the evidence is lost or there remains fragments, but the point is that Pontius Pilate wasn’t written about till after he existed and yet no one denies him, why do you deny Jesus then?

Sven2547

I don’t think I was straw-manning you there.

Then you don’t have a clue what I’m saying and talking to you is a waste of time. Good-bye.

Sven2547

I will also add that this entire subthread about mythicists is a classless red herring on your part. A distinct turn away from the topic of the blog posting and the comment thread.

Matt Brown

No it’s not, Mythicism like Young-earth creationism is psuedoscholarship

Sven2547

How is asking for evidence, and drawing conclusions from the profound lack thereof, “pseudoscholarship”?

Matt Brown

Because Mythicism is not based on any evidence, nor is it a mainstream view held by historians and scholars. Both camps end up denying the abundant evidence that is available(Evidence that the earth is 13 billion years old and Evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed), and end up drawing conclusions that are totally impossible and problematic

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

On the one hand, mythicists are not drawing conclusions from lack of evidence. They are twisting the evidence we do have from early Christianity, which makes it far more probable than not that there was a historical Jesus. On the other hand, it certainly is important to distinguish what we mean by contemporary. The apostle Paul would qualify – it isn’t clear that he ever met the historical Jesus, but he was alive at the time and poised to know others who had. Those born later do not.

Sven2547

Because Mythicism is not based on any evidence

How do I know an atomic bomb has not been set off in my yard? Because I can draw sensible conclusions from a profound lack of evidence.

The fact that you are even comparing the “evidence” of a historical Jesus to the scientifically verified age of the universe demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the subject material.

Oh, and the Earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, not 13.

Matt Brown

“How do I know an atomic bomb has not been set off in my yard? Because I can draw sensible conclusions from a profound lack of evidence.”

No, because if an atomic bomb had went off in your yard, you would expect there to be evidence for it. The point is, an absence of evience is only an evidence of absence if and only if we expect there to be evidence of something and it’s not there or we expect to have knowledge of something and it’s not there.

“The fact that you are even comparing the “evidence” of a historical Jesus to the scientifically verified age of the universe demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the subject material.”

Perhaps you misunderstood the analogy. Using the scientific method to verify an event in history does not work because in order to know what happened in history, you need to use the historical method. The purpose of my analogy was to show that like YEC’s, mythicists end up demonstrating demonstrably false material and make it sound as though it were “historical scholarship”, when in fact, mythicism is not schohlarship. Mythicists like YEC’s deny the much abudant evidence available, as well as the consensus’s published work on the issue, and they in turn try to come up with something that is so implaussible and problematic that they themselves don’t even really believe it.

Saying that God ‘could have’ created the earth in 6000 years or that Jesus ‘could have’ been a myth is not enough in history or science, nor reality.

Both camps(YEC’s and Mythicists) have not been able to demonstrate their hypothesis without having insourmountable problems.

I meant 4.5 not 13 lol:)

Sven2547

No, because if an atomic bomb had went off in your yard, you would expect there to be evidence for it.

You’re just re-stating the point I made…

The point is, an absence of evience is only an evidence of absence if and only if we expect there to be evidence of something and it’s not there or we expect to have knowledge of something and it’s not there.

You’re still just re-stating my point. If Jesus really existed, and he made such a commotion in and around Jerusalem, I would expect evidence for it. It’s not there.

Using the scientific method to verify an event in history does not work because in order to know what happened in history, you need to use the historical method

The scientific method can be used to verify events in history. The extinction of the dinosaurs is a classic example. But even using the “historical method”, evidence is still sorely lacking here.

like YEC’s, mythicists end up demonstrating demonstrably false material and make it sound as though it were “historical scholarship”

I’m still patiently awaiting the “demonstration” part of that statement…

Matt Brown

“You’re still just re-stating my point. If Jesus really existed, and he made such a commotion in and around Jerusalem, I would expect evidence for it. It’s not there.”

You were saying a lack of evidence in general is evidence for the non-existence of something and that’s not true. Second, The evidence we do expect is there and it’s overwhelming. But you keep denying it and you merely assume it’s not proof, but you don’t show how.

“The scientific method can be used to verify events in history. The extinction of the dinosaurs is a classic example. But even using the “historical method”, evidence is still sorely lacking here.”

Yes, I don’t deny that, but I’m simply saying that Science can only give you an idea of what might have happened. You can’t use the direct method to verify whether something or someone existed. You have to use the historical deductive method in order to draw that kind of conclusion.

“I’m still patiently awaiting the “demonstration” part of that statement…”

Well mythicists will typically argue that certain events in the gospels didn’t happen or that parallels exist, but that’s not proof that Jesus didn’t exist.

Sven2547

You were saying a lack of evidence in general is evidence for the non-existence of something and that’s not true.

I gave a clear example of a case where it can be true. I’m not saying the principle applies in all situations, but sometimes an absence of evidence can be used to draw common-sense conclusions. The burden of proof is on you, pal.

The evidence we do expect is there and it’s overwhelming.

You keep saying that, but when pressed for examples you keep regurgitating junk. By “overwhelming”, are you talking about those four guys who were no more “contemporaneous” to Jesus than I am to Woodrow Wilson?

Matt Brown

“I gave a clear example of a case where it can be true. I’m not saying the principle applies in all situations, but sometimes an absence of evidence can be used to draw common-sense conclusions. The burden of proof is on you.”

The burden of proof is on the both of us.

“You keep saying that, but when pressed for examples you keep regurgitating junk. By “overwhelming”, are you talking about those four guys who were no more “contemporaneous” to Jesus than I am to Woodrow Wilson?”

You keep claiming that my examples are “junk”, but you don’t show how; especially when I gave reasons why they are reliable enough to tell us that there was a historical Jesus

TomS

I wonder whether these two figures are comparable numbers, whether they represent the same metric of DNA similarities. I wonder what the figures are for other taxonomic families (Bovidae are my particular interest because the Bible mentions bovid species in the time of Abraham, showing the speed of flood-flood microevolution.) Is there a single reference for several families?

Will

Both figures are nuclear DNA euchromatin and heterochromatin. So yes, they are the same metric.

Most statistics for genetic similarity, unless otherwise specified, are nuclear DNA and including nuclear heterochromatin.

Also, there was never a global flood despite what the Bible says on the matter. Actually, the Bible may well have used the term “world” to denote the known world at the time, not the whole globe of Earth.

While the evidence counterindicates a global flood, it indicates a Mediterranean Flood around 50,000 BC. The Black Sea and the Dead Sea did use to be freshwater lakes.

The reason there were cattle, cats, and humans in Abraham’s time is because the world was billions of years old even then. The number of generations from the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) to Abraham is mind-boggling!

TomS

You have no need to convince me of the non-reality of Noah’s Flood. And it would be an anachronism for Genesis to speak of the globe of the Earth. My interest is in inconsistencies of YEC on its own terms, which explains my question about bovids, which provides perhaps the earliest Biblical example of different species in one family. That being cleared up, I have this nit-pick: the fact that the same thing is being measured is no guarantee of the same metric being used.

JWF

There a two theories held be creationists. One is an old earth (?), and the other is a 6000 year old earth. I believe in an old earth. The gap theory. Then God formed, made and created man 6000 years ago. I have never heard an evolutionist tell me which primate they evolved from. For good reason. No one wants to admit their great grandpa was a Baboon……. So, Which primate did you descend from?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

No human’s great grandfather was a baboon. Wouldn’t it be appropriate to understand evolution first, rather than rejecting misunderstandings of it that anti-science creationists perpetuate?

JWF

There are two camps, I agree. Anti-science and Anti-creation! There also are no transitional fossils. All creatures reproduce after their kind unless genetically manipulated into a hybrid. That’s not natural though. We don’t see Satires running around and we know there is beastiality.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

No, you have misunderstood even my very clear comment. It is possible to believe in creation and embrace science. Indeed, many of science’s pioneers – all the way from Isaac Newton developing modern physics to Francis Collins mapping the human genome – have believe in God as Creator.

Your statement that there are no transitional fossils is simply false. And your statement about “hybrids” and “kinds” suggests that you aren’t talking about evolution in the sense that biologists use the term, but a distortion that I can only think is intentionally spread by anti-science creationists like yourself, since it is so easy to know better in our day of abundant information at our disposal.

JWF

I believe Daniel was a creationist and Timothy also, who addressed sudo-scientists who denied God, the Creator.

Daniel 1:3-5 3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

1 Timothy 6:20 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Science and the Laws of the Science agree with God. For he made them. Just ask some of the Great scientist like Newton, Einstein…… that were either Jewish or Christian.

The scriptures also say some will deny the Flood record.

It even calls them willfully ignorant.

2 Peter 3:4-6 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: Man in his denial of the creator has a lot of Monkey business in his denial of God. Maybe that is because some are descendants of Apes & Chimps?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

Indeed, one should avoid vain babblings!

The evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming, clear, and multifaceted.

You will notice that no Biblical author calls upon people to reject the best understanding of the cosmos on offer in their time. Genesis 1 does not depict the waters above the dome and in the seas as the corpse of Tiamat, but it otherwise agrees with the depiction of the physical make up of the sky and what is above it that is found in the Enuma Elish, and disagrees with modern science. So do you accept its ancient science, or do you accept a different viewpoint offered by modern astronomy and space exploration?

JWF

I understand the firmament in part….. All I know is in part though. Never seen the “dome” in God’s word? Is that the Astrodome in Houston? LOL! The dome you talk about was probably when the Chimps were evolving. What did they write about it?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

It is right there in Genesis 1. If your translation hides the dome from you to try to make the Bible more palatable, you might want to try reading another version for comparison, to see what else is being hidden from you.

JWF

I do believe science is evolutionary depending on the monarchy. Galileo kept his head because he agreed with false science. Some today keep their jobs and get grants because they agree with false sciences. Where are the flatworlders today?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

There are still flatworlders, who are more consistent Biblical literalists than young-earthers.

JWF

Not a young earther. Niether is God.

TomS

Don’t forget the geocentrists, who are concerned not to be confused with those who main the untenable flat Earth, but still are more consistent in the purity of their understanding of the Bible from contaminating influence of fallible mere human modern science.

JWF

What about the oppositions of science falsely so called? Like transitional fossils?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

Choosing a translation that renders the word for knowledge as “science” and treating that as though it were a reference to the modern study of the natural sciences is incredibly dishonest.

JWF

Enuma Elish, are you Baboonlonian & into Dungeons & Dragons?

JWF

Macro or Micro?

Sven2547

It’s pretty obvious you don’t understand either (hint: they’re both the same process)

arcseconds

What strange behaviour you’re ascribing to biologists: openly admitting that people are descended from (non-human, for we are primates – my last primate ancestors were my mum and dad!) primates, but being all coy about exactly which one!

Have any biologists ever actually said they were embarassed about this? I’ve certainly never heard any biologists say anything of the sort. They’re normally excited about tracing human origins, and, if anything, express more pride in our background than anything else. It’s a great rags-to-riches, tree-shrew-to-human story!

The exact species are not known with certainty. This is usually the case in evolutionary biology, as it’s not generally possible to establish with certainty that a particular species gave arise to another. Plus, there’s no reason to suppose that we’ve even found the exact ancestor, or ever will. So generally evolutionary biologsts try not to say “this species gave rise to that species” but rather things like “the last common ancestor to these two existing species was probably something close to (and could even actually be) this fossil species here”.

The Homo genus is thought to be evolved from an Australopithecus species. The last common ancestor to humans and chimpanzees was probably something like Sahelanthropus. The ancestor of all primates was probably something like Archicebus.

I suspect you’re probably not actually interested in this, because if you were, you could have found it out pretty easily for yourself (which makes me think this ‘evolutionists refuse to tell me!’ business is a cheap rhetorical ploy) but just in case my cynicism is misspaced and you are, there you have it.

Indeed, as evidenced by your statements here. The evidence doesn’t matter, you’re just going to say it’s all wrong and insult the integrity and intelligence of the entire scientific community anyway.

JWF

So sorry you are insulted. Come up with some valid evidence. Not, Monkey business.

arcseconds

Do you actually want to have a serious discussion about this? I fear that it’s really just an opportunity for you to continue lobbing your potshots, which you will do regardless of what I say.

If that’s what is going to happen, I’d rather not waste my time.

JWF

What about your potshots? I do have regard to what you say. But it has to be based on evidences not conjecture! Lots of theories, to little time.

arcseconds

You think evolutionary biology is merely conjecture?

That seems like a very strong conclusion. Do you have strong evidence that the entire scientific community is just creating theories out of nothing? Or is this notion just conjecture on your part?

Someone making such a claim and expect to be taken seriously would have to be very well informed about scientific practice, and be able to show what they present as evidence and why it doesn’t count as evidence.

If you simply don’t know what their evidence is, suggesting it’s merely conjecture is out of place. If you’re ignorant about the subject, the appropriate attitude to have is “I don’t know anything about this topic, and I’m keen to know more. Please tell me?”

Not “I don’t know anything about the topic, but I reckon it’s all bunk. ”

The question of the starting point is important, because teaching someone who’s open minded and willing to learn is a lot easier, and more pleasant for both parties, than someone who’s convinced they know it all already without knowing anything about the matter, which is just going to be an excercise in frustration.

If, on the other hand, you are basing the assertion that evolutionary biology is nothing but conjecture on actual knowledge of the theory and the status of the evidence for it, then I invite you to present your case for it.

JWF

You are the case in study. I don’t think you have evolved above bunk either. But, You are about 98.5% there as stated in the article.

arcseconds

Well, I suppose this shows how interested you really are in basing your views on evidence and having a proper discussion.

JWF

Never saw any evidence on your side produced Lucy!

arcseconds

Well, evolutionary biologsts certainly think they have evidence.

Have you looked at any of this evidence in detail? Maybe you’ve taken an evolutionary biology course? Read an evolutionary biology textbook? Or at least a popular science book on the matter?

If you haven’t bothered to look, then of course you haven’t seen any evidence.

JWF

Conjecture still. Where is the fossil evidence? Smoke and Mirrors!

arcseconds

The only statement of fact I made is that evolutionary biologists think they have evidence. That isn’t conjecture, they say this all the time.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

Enough is enough. There are plenty of places on the web where your antics might be considered acceptable, but this is a place for serious discussion. Unless you would like actually discuss relevant evidence – human chromosome 2, or Tiktaalik, or the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes, for instance – then kindly take your rude insults, dishonesty, and other immoral behavior elsewhere.

JWF

Ditto James! You cannot handle honest Godly opposition!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

Sorry, I am not aware that we are on a first name basis. And I have discussed all the aforementioned topics previously, so it isn’t clear what the “ditto” is supposed to mean. But I will not have you bringing the Christian faith into disrepute through your despicable arrogance combined with ignorance. Goodbye.

Baboon and humans had a common ancestor millions of years ago. We did not descend from any modern primate species. All modern primate species are as evolved as we are. No-one can say for certain which species of ape we derived from, but it might have been something like ‘proconsul’.

JWF

Hello Guest, Yes, we are not sure what you have evolved from? When you say we. You should say you, and your family. Have you asked their opinion of their origins?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

An Evangelical Christian led the way in mapping the human genome, and so unless you are neither human nor Christian, there is no way to exempt yourself from the implications of this research.

JWF

Actually we have a common Creator.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

That is a silly false antithesis, like saying that two people cannot both be descended from Charlemagne, because people share a common Creator.

JWF

Dear James, We have one writer with a Baboon as a relative. They are still in the closet though. May they come out. We need the evidence. So we can document your Origins.

JWF

So, Have any of you with a Monkeys uncle ever read Otta Benga? Now there is some Monkey business without a Monkey!

Sven2547

What does Ota Benga have to do with anything?

Adam Crowl

The ape in the illustration is a young Gorilla, not a Chimpanzee. Still a close relative.